Skip to main content

Mookieghana on WWE Network

http://whatculture.com/wwe/667287-subscribers-mean-wwe-network.php

Figured Chris Harrington would be all over this.  Man, if they don't get their promised TV deal, the numbers could get ugly.  

Comments

  1. They've killed their ppv business. They've killed their home video business. The Network is meant to replace them both. They're all in on this. Come what may. As I said in the other thread. This is the point of no return. There's no going back to business as usual now that the Network has launched.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cannot begin to describe how many lolz were had at the announcement of Jeff Jarrett's promotion. When you make TNA look professional by comparison, whoa boy...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your_Favourite_LoserApril 7, 2014 at 1:57 PM

    "The stock is NOT down because Brock Lesnar beat the Undertaker."

    lol

    ReplyDelete
  4. Stranger in the AlpsApril 7, 2014 at 2:01 PM

    Hoo boy, all those numbers. I'll tell you what: I'll watch it until they decide to cancel it all. Let everyone else figger out what dem numbers all mean.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is keeping a regular PPV schedule even important? They control their own network now.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your_Favourite_LoserApril 7, 2014 at 2:05 PM

    it would be nice have the fiber of once-a-month "events"

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'd prefer they have fewer from an artistic standpoint. It's easier to do longer angles.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Your_Favourite_LoserApril 7, 2014 at 2:06 PM

    aces and 8's says hi :P

    ReplyDelete
  9. That logo.............

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well it's nice to not have to go to your vhs collection to watch an unedited ppv.

    When I can watch it on the network in HD.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As do Flair/Dusty, Hogan/Andre, Hogan/Savage, Austin/McMahon. Aces and Eights were the downside of some pretty decent TNA booking at that time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Your_Favourite_LoserApril 7, 2014 at 2:09 PM

    i'm not sure they know how to do long term booking, though. the classic examples are from a different time



    even though rock/cena was announced a year out, it didn't get going till the rumble.


    and even everything that's happened with dbry wasn't hotshotted till before the rumble, and then put in overdrive after that due to crowd backlash

    ReplyDelete
  13. Still, WWE Stock is still way up year-to-date and if you look at the five year stock ticket it's actually doing insanely wonderful.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Did you even bother to read the article? The key questions were addressed there:


    1. How much did the Network cannibalize the WM buyrate. We won't know that for a few weeks. If Wrestlemania was 50 - 65% of traditional buys, they're well ahead of the game; and


    2. Now that the Network has shown that it can capably handle WM, does this mean that WWE will get both a subscription boost and the confidence to boost the price to $15 / month.


    Because at $15 / month, they make their money back without blinking. And as noted, Amazon Prime has been able to pull off price increases successfully.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Time to hotshot the belts onto Batista.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The numbers are actually pretty close to the mid-level scenario in the Corporate chart. $70M net revenue on the Network, with the big question being how much they're cannibalizing their traditional revenue streams (I think $15M is *way* under that real figure, personally).

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think last night will go a very long way with consumer good will. I was EXTREMELY impressed with the stream's performance and, unrelated to the network, somebody bought me a Roku a couple weeks ago. Since hooking that up, I've had to remind myself that WWE Network is an internet streaming service and not a regular cable broadcasting station. I just hit a button and watch it on my TV with little to no issue with the stream. After last night, I told myself that this Network has paid for itself until they raise the price to a point that it's no longer a worthwhile investment.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And what's that price for you?


    Because if it's $15, they're profitable.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This guy is overqualified for WhatCulture.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I wonder how many subscribers are sharing their log in worth others and if they cracked down on that how many new subscribers they would get.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think it only allows streaming to one device at a time.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Each year I always buy WrestleMania (which is what, $60 in and of itself?) and Royal Rumble ($40?), with SummerSlam and Money in the Bank typically question marks depending on the build. $15 per month is $180, which falls within that total price range. I'm not sure I'd go as high as $20, but $15 is still worthwhile.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Good to see people who disliked the booking last night are all over this today. Trust me, my dividends are still looking pretty swank compared to eight-ten months ago.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "In the last eight incarnations, Wrestlemania has averaged 1.07 million worldwide buys (667k domestic buys) on Pay-Per-View."


    So the hardcore U.S. fanbase is essentially 667k? That the average domestic buys of Wrestlemania and the initial launch number of the WWE Network is exactly the same is pretty damning evidence i'd say.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I actually just tried it by having it running on my iPhone and PC at the same time. I clicked off WiFi on my phone to make sure they were different IP addresses as well.


    The verdict: You can have two devices running the same account at once.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Exactly what I thought. I was surprised at the analytical detail of the piece.

    ReplyDelete
  27. That's so tricky though because how many first time, 8 year old "Dad I just found this thing called wrestling can we get Wrestlemania?" people are in that buyrate?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I don't think it did the first couple of days, but I've ran the network on my phone and my laptop and had no issues since.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment